|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 8:53:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 9, 2010 17:26:10 GMT
Indeed fascinating. This is a subject that has interested me for a long time, probably along with many other people who live outside their home country and speak a language that wasn't learned in babyhood.
I'd say that in that case, the person can almost track the internalization of the second language. You start out with your native tongue -- the strong language -- and struggle with the language of your host country -- the weak language. I've noted that the more people try reason out the second language into a form acceptable to their native tongue thinking, the more trouble they have speaking the second language.
Obviously, as the second language becomes stronger and you're more able to converse and interact with the native speakers, you'll have more insight into the culture anyway, which would muddy the waters of whether or not the language itself was affecting how you think. However, it would probably also depend to a great extent on how much you used either language.
I know a lady in Oaxaca who moved here in 1959, when she was thirty, without being able to speak Spanish. She married a local man (who spoke English), had four children, and most of her social life was with local people. She later became the librarian at the English-language library, so spent a portion of each day with English speakers. Her daily life was conducted mostly in Spanish however. A Oaxacan friend once famously said about her, "Doña Ruth is not only Mexican, she is a Oaxaqueña.", an accurate reference to her basic way of thinking.
I thought the detail about spatial orientation was extremely interesting -- whether one uses oneself (right, left, etc.) as the crux of direction, or the world's directions (north, south, etc.). It would be interesting to know how this affects the ego, even. The comment: They perform navigational feats scientists once thought were beyond human capabilities. This is a big difference, a fundamentally different way of conceptualizing space, trained by language. also says a great deal about the languages in which the scientists were thinking.
In the part of Oklahoma where my mother lives, directions are always given in geographical terms even when inside (the west wall of the store, etc.). These directions always had to be clarified for me. I believe this form of direction is common all over the south- and mid-west.
A slight quibble with what the article says about Japanese and Spanish forms of "the vase broke itself". That's something English speakers here find funny about Spanish, but that's because of a misunderstanding of how reflexive verbs work. El florero se rompió does not mean that it broke itself, but rather that "The vase got broken" or the "The vase was broken". Still, it does not negate the findings of the speakers of those two languages having difficulty in recalling the agent of blame.
That is a most interesting article full of food for thought. I'll be reading it again in order to think about it more deeply.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2010 17:42:14 GMT
French is the same in terms of breaking the vase as well. Most people will say something like "the vase was broken" although it of course remains possible to attribute blame if you want to: "Pierre broke the vase."
On of the most fascinating terms in French is, "ça ne se fait pas" meaning "it isn't done." Those five words are a complete lesson in savoir-vivre and French civilization.
"Can I have dessert before the main course?" "Is it okay to drink a strawberry milk shake with foie gras?" "Can I bring my disco records to the wake?"
"It isn't done" is a very elegant way to say "are you fucking out of your mind?" without insulting the person asking the question. It gives no value judgement and even allows the asker the possibility of imagining that local people are not very evolved in their ways and that care must be taken with their primitive feelings.
Unfortunately, a lot of people from other cultures can be obtuse, leading them to say: "Why not?"
And thus begins the great misunderstanding between the French and a lot of other people in the world.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Aug 9, 2010 18:05:44 GMT
In Italian the reflexive will sometimes optionally be invoked as an intensifier of the verb it modifies- just as it sometimes can in English: "I ate myself a whole mess of chile." or "She had herself a good old time." These reflexive constructions in English generally sound rural and colloquial to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Aug 10, 2010 15:27:33 GMT
Even in Italian, that reflexive construction is rather colloquial. Not at all necessarily rustic though - Romans use it all the time. It is also affectionate (used a lot for food and eating). I hear people (even anglophones) saying "it isn't done" in English here all the time, but that is linguistic interference. However, you are allowed to take disco records to the wake if the dear departed was a fan...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2010 16:50:35 GMT
Thinking more about this subject, I am realizing more and more how different the passive voice in French is (laying no blame -- "the car was stolen") compared to English.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 16, 2010 17:38:59 GMT
In Italian the reflexive will sometimes optionally be invoked as an intensifier of the verb it modifies- just as it sometimes can in English: "I ate myself a whole mess of chile." or "She had herself a good old time." Actually, realizing that the Spanish reflexive translated into that style of English enormously helped me to internalize it and use it correctly. However, you are allowed to take disco records to the wake if the dear departed was a fan... I know this isn't on topic, but I just went through 300 of Cristina's posts trying to find her full, moving account of her brother's funeral and the dixieland band kindly provided by his Vietnamese relatives. Does anyone remember where that is? how different the passive voice in French is (laying no blame -- "the car was stolen") compared to English. I'm assuming that passive usage is common to all the Romance languages. Is that correct? I'm trying to think that if in English it would be more common to say, "Someone stole his car" or "His car got stolen".
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Aug 16, 2010 18:18:34 GMT
I think it depends on what you want to emphasize -- the fact that the car is gone or that somebody stole it. It's the same in French, in fact: sa voiture a été volée or on lui a volé sa voiture.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 16, 2010 18:46:21 GMT
Well yes, but I think how it was phrased, in English at least, would be unconscious, more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 15:22:42 GMT
An article on the same subject as that in the OP was in this morning's NYTimes online. I think the OP article is the better of the two as it's more succinct, but this is a subject that compels you to want to know more. Some 50 years ago, the renowned linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out a crucial fact about differences between languages in a pithy maxim: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.” This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about. The article I'm linking does address something that particularly interests me as a native English speaker, that of the gender assigned to even inanimate objects in other languages. Even after all these years of speaking Spanish, this doesn't feel intrinsic to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2010 15:51:50 GMT
Frankly, I am absolutely fascinated by the difference between making yourself the center of the world (left, right, front, back) or making the world more important (north, east, south, west).
It makes me wonder if there are other ways to "see" the world.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 17:05:53 GMT
Yes, that part really intrigues me. The article says kids as young as two can orient themselves geographically, and completely master this by the time they're seven or eight. I thought the story about the kid who lost that ability when moved to a different town was interesting: When told to take “three steps east” or “bend southwest,” he didn’t know what to do. The boy would not have had the least trouble with these directions in his own village, but because the landscape in the new village was entirely unfamiliar, he became disoriented and confused. But the child's age is not given, he's only referred to as "a young boy". The age factor would seem crucial, especially as a little later in the article it says, "speakers of geographic languages seem to have an almost-superhuman sense of orientation".
Besides the usefulness of internalizing geographic coordinates as a consequence of ones language, I wonder if using non-egocentric coordinates would make a person a better member of the tribe. Think of how we say in English & maybe other languages, "he thinks he's the center of the universe" about anyone we think excessively egotistical.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2010 18:14:58 GMT
It is interesting to note that many Europeans (particularly the French) get lost when given 'American' driving directions, because Americans do say to turn north or west or whatever on various highways to get somewhere. But this is not necessarily because Americans are oriented to the cardinal points but because the road signs say "North US 19" or "South US 19" even if the road is actually going temporarily east or west or at a diagonal.
French directions are always in terms of the next village or a major city with no indication of the cardinal points. Trying to think of the farthest places mentioned on the autoroute road signs leaving Paris, I know that the following cities are mentioned at various times: Lille, Bruxelles, Rouen, Lyon, Bordeaux, Metz, Nancy, Troyes, Orléans... I'm sure I'm forgetting some, and it is interesting to note that Brussels is the only foreign city mentioned on a sign, but that's not too surprising, because it is closer to Paris than Lyon, Bordeaux, Metz, Nancy...
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 29, 2010 18:26:41 GMT
The way Americans give directions is pretty regional. In parts of the midwest and southwest, you'll be told to go to the west wall of the store, for instance, even if you're inside the store.
This is not helpful to people like me who think in right or left directions. If we're standing in a gas station and you ask me how to get on the interstate to go to Houston, I'd tell you to take a right out of the station, go to the first light, take a left onto the highway, then take another left to get on I-10 West.
I'd say the population as a whole is roughly divided into thirds -- those who use geographic points, those who use left & right, and those who can't give intelligible directions at all.
I've often found interstate signs deficient. Going west out of New Orleans, you'll see a sign for Metairie or Bonnabel Blvd. As a tourist, this is probably meaningless to you. You really, really want to see that reassuring sign that says Baton Rouge.
Also when you're out on the open interstate, the signs can be pretty stingy: Atlanta 739 miles. Yeah, but what's between here and Atlanta?
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Aug 30, 2010 6:21:32 GMT
I wouldn't say people in Toronto, Canada are geographically-oriented, but directions are always given that way. "I'll meet you on the north-east corner of Bay and Bloor". I didn't strike me as odd until I moved away. But there is a main dividing street in the city, starting from which main streets are often East or West. Most streets are of course not labelled that way, but people will still say, "I live on the east side of the street."
I don't believe those kinds of directions would be given in a store though.
Here in Toulouse, people often give directions using a building or a big store as the reference point. "Turn left at the next street and it's opposite the Monoprix."
those who can't give intelligible directions at all.
A few years ago when I was learning Italian, one day the teacher drew a simple town map on the blackboard and had us give each other directions, for example, "tell x how to get from the city hall to the church." I was amazed at how many were incapable of figuring out left from right. These were mostly retired teachers. Some of them were practically standing on their heads trying to make sense of it. I have a lousy sense of direction, but I can read a map.
|
|
|
Post by joanne28 on Sept 23, 2010 18:11:23 GMT
Interestingly, living in the Toronto area, I orient myself to Lake Ontario. As long as I know where the lake is, I know where north, south, east and west are.
The same thing when I lived in Montréal - I oriented myself to the St. Lawrence river.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 23, 2010 20:53:24 GMT
Me, the river and also our so-called mountain.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2010 20:59:45 GMT
Paris is very definitely a "turn right, turn left" city. You can't use the cardinal points, because nearly all of the streets are crooked, although people will talk about "northeast Paris" and things like that to people who are not familiar with the arrondissement numbers. Naturally "Left Bank" and "Right Bank" convey a major piece of information when talking about Paris, but since the river is at a curved angle everywhere, it is not very useful as a reference point. Boulevard Saint Germain, for example, starts at the Seine.... and it ends at the Seine, but it does not run anywhere along the Seine.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 24, 2010 12:03:46 GMT
I am also fascinated by the way people give directions. I am one of the few males who is the opposite of the stereotype male and I will ask if I'm not sure. Over many years I have encountered many different ways but when Bixa says - I'd say the population as a whole is roughly divided into thirds -- those who use geographic points, those who use left & right, and those who can't give intelligible directions at all. I'd have to add there is often a difference between a male and a female giving directions to the same place. Men usually tend to more refer to the road itself whereas females tend to refer to what is on or near the road.
Male - "Turn right at the next junction, keep straight until the second left, turn west on to the A21 and when you reach the flyover, take another left. It's about a mile down there on the right."
Female - "Turn right at Lidl, keep going until you see the Zara clothes shop and turn left on to a bigger road with lots of new houses being built. When you get to the Sports Centre turn left, after a little while you'll see it about opposite the recreation park."
No?
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 24, 2010 12:22:24 GMT
It was only when I went to NY that I understood what the corner of 73rd and Broadway was.........
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 24, 2010 14:43:09 GMT
You nailed it, Mark!
The people who make me crazy are the ones who give this kind of directions: "Just keep going on the main road. You'll see a Wendy's at the third -- oh wait, maybe it's the fourth light. There used to be an Arby's there. Don't turn there. Keep going until you see that auditorium where Sally had her dance recital that time you came here with your mom. That wasn't you who came with Agnes that time? Anyway, you don't want to turn at the auditorium, but you might think about getting into your left lane then .............................. etc."
Mick, people in the UK don't say "the corner of x and y"?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Sept 24, 2010 16:10:10 GMT
We don't usually. We say, 'at the junction of.....' if we refer to two roads. Of the top of my head I'd say that is due to there being few if any towns/cities that were built originally in a grid pattern whereby a street will cut across another and continue over the other side, then the next one you come to does the same etc.
Originally there would have been one track and as the town built up due to a river or something specific about its location, other tracks would divert off it to go to other locations. The town/city would then grow 'organically' with other tracks/streets/roads diverging off ad nauseam, passing around farmers fields, around obstacles whilst others joined or left at will. If there was any planning then the streets tended to be built in a radial pattern rather than a grid pattern.
The Romans caused some upset when they decided to build a straight road, often straight through and area cutting across other tracks. Then you'd get a continuation across the other side. Bear in mind also that in no place that I know of in the UK did we arrive on a wagon and decide to build a complete town in the middle of nowhere - and we had the space to do so. (Except Milton Keynes, which is awful)
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Sept 24, 2010 16:14:13 GMT
Mark is absolutely spot on.
The arrival of the railway caused many villages to expand quickly around the station but I guess you could say that about many places in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2010 16:49:29 GMT
It was only when I went to NY that I understood what the corner of 73rd and Broadway was......... Broadway exists only to screw up directions for all of us out-of-towners since it's the only diagonal street in Manhattan and sneaks around through all of the avenues.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 25, 2010 12:59:22 GMT
Like many odd streets in grid patterns in the Americas, Broadway was originally a trail used by the Indigenous people, Wickquasgeck Trail. It is a literal English translation of Breede Weg.
Toronto has a very straight grid but there are odd roads such as Davenport Road which were originally Native trails. We have several such roads, typically (but not always) called "côte" something as they follow the hills (and so-called mountain) of the natural terrain rather than being plotted out with no regard for the terrain.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2010 14:48:33 GMT
If I might mention something about body language, I read that dogs are the only four-footed animal that has learned to look at where your finger points instead of just looking at your finger. And apparently this is true even of wild dogs.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Sept 30, 2010 17:58:12 GMT
Recently when having drinks with a group of friends, we had a comical conversation regarding how, we, in this town, give directions. It is not north/south or at the intersection of or many others listed above, it is by "you know, right beside the old Kresge's store." "You know, where that is, where the McDonald's used to be." "If you go past where the Ford car lot used to be." We always refer to a business that is closed or torn down years ago. We are no help to visitors!
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 5, 2010 18:09:14 GMT
Ha ha, Mich! That may be common all over the world. One direction you hear all the time here is "go to the Volkswagen". That means the traffic light by the old, original Volkswagen dealership. That kind of casual resident knowledge can be confusing even when you're from a place, if you're getting the directions from a much older resident. My grandmother would tell you to turn right at the old Dougherty place. Referring to the former residence of people who died before I was born was not helpful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'm throwing this link in here because it's somewhat related to seeing and relating through language: www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05compute.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=thQuote from article: Few challenges in computing loom larger than unraveling semantics, understanding the meaning of language. One reason is that the meaning of words and phrases hinges not only on their context, but also on background knowledge that humans learn over years, day after day.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2011 8:32:46 GMT
Most Parisians will casually talk about "l'Etoile" when the only name that visitors know is "Place Charles de Gaulle". The name was changed in 1970.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 24, 2011 8:53:09 GMT
Same with Beaubourg aka Centre Pompidou and Roissy for CDG airport.
|
|